https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/13123

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU** **CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. E011 OF 2026** **IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 2(1), 2(5), 10(1) & (2), 19, 20(1), 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 35, 41, 47, 56, 73, AND 232 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF THE EMPLOYMENT ACT,** **AND** **IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ACT** **BETWEEN** **MUTUMA GLADYS MAKENA …..………………….......…..………..…….1ST PETITIONER** **DIANA NTINYARI MAORE……………….………......…………..………..2ND PETITIONER** **ALICE NYAMBURA………………………….…….......……….…………..3RD PETITIONER** **-AND-** **COUNTY PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD MERU COUNTY ……....………….1ST RESPONDENT** **THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF MERU…….…………............….....2ND RESPONDENT** **THE COUNTY SECRETARY MERU COUNTY………………...………….3RD RESPONDENT** **JUDGMENT** 1. Vide a petition dated 12th March 2026, the petitioners moved the court seeking the following prayers: 1. A declaration that the respondents in shortlisting candidates for interviews on 17th March 2026 in respect of the advertisement dated 18th December 2025 acted contrary to the provisions of the law and the Constitution of Kenya. 2. A declaration that the letter/notice dated 3rd March 2026 was made in contravention of the Constitution of Kenya, the Employment Act and of the Public Service Commission Act. 3. A declaration that the recruitment process conducted by the respondents herein in unconstitutional therefore null and void. 4. An order setting aside respondents recruitment process of the vacancies advertised by the 2nd respondent and an order revoking the notice for shortlist and interview schedule dated 3rd March 2026. 5. An order of Mandamus compelling the 1st respondent to re-run the recruitment process again in a fair, transparent, and merit-based manner. 6. General damages for breach of the petitioners’ rights. 7. Costs and interest of the petition. 2. The respondents entered appearance and each filed a preliminary objection, which the court dealt with vide its ruling delivered on 16th June 2026. 3. The petitioners’ case is premised on the averment that: - 1. They are qualified teachers having undergone the requisite training. 2. The respondents advertised vacancies for the position of Early Childhood Development Education (ECDE) teachers on 18th December 2025. 3. That the advertisement stipulated the requirements for appointment. 4. That the applicants duly submitted their applications on meeting all the requirements. 5. That upon such submission, they were asked if they had any ties with someone in the executive or anyone who could push their applications, to which they answered in the negative. 6. That on 3rd March 2026, a shortlist of candidates was published, which did not include the petitioners or other qualified persons. 7. That their enquiries from people with information revealed that the recruitment process was marred by nepotism and cronyism. 8. That in a bid to conceal the illegal process, the respondents did not indicate the sub-counties that the shortlisted candidates hail from which is a mandatory requirement. 9. That more than 80% of the shortlisted candidate hail from a specific sub-county within Meru County. 10. That their investigations revealed that the shortlisted candidates were recruited only on the basis of good connections and payment of token to compromise members of the 1st respondent. 11. That only one candidate living with disability was shortlisted which was unconstitutional. 4. The petitioners allege that the intended recruitment contravenes the constitution and statute law. They particularized the violations as follows; 5. Violation of Article 235 & County Governments Act (Meritocracy): That the appointments were not based on competence and suitability but on political patronage. 6. Failure of Regional Balance under Art 56 of the Constitution: That the recruitment failed to consider representation of minority groups within the county 7. Discrimination of persons, Section 5(1) of the Employment Act and Section 37(2) of the Public Service Commission Act: That the recruitment process was marred with a lot of discrimination on the basis of discrimination based on race, color, sex, language, religion, political opinion, national extraction, social origin, tribe, disability. 8. Violation of Articles 10 and 232 of the Constitution – Principles of Good Governance and Public Service: That the Respondents' failure to adhere to transparent, merit-based, and lawful recruitment procedures contravenes Article 10 of the Constitution, which enshrines national values and principles, including good governance, integrity, transparency, and accountability. 9. Violation of Article 232 which mandates fair competition, merit-based appointments, and representation of Kenya’s diverse communities, all of which were disregarded in the impugned appointment. 10. Breach of Article 27 – Right to Equality and Freedom from Discrimination: That the recruitment process unfairly disadvantaged qualified local residents by appointing an individual who did not meet the core residency requirement. That this unjust selection not only deprived them of equal opportunity but also placed them at a clear disadvantage compared to other regions, undermining their rightful stake in public service employment. 11. Non-compliance with Article 73 of the Constitution: That the appointment of the Interested Party, who does not meet the fundamental eligibility criteria, constitutes an abuse of power and a deviation from the principles of public trust, accountability, and service to the people. 12. Contravention of Article 47 of the Constitution- Right to Fair Administrative Action: That the failure to adhere to a transparent, objective, and procedurally fair recruitment process denied the applicants their right to fair administrative action. That the arbitrary appointment, which disregarded the advertised qualifications and the principles of fairness, is unlawful, unreasonable, and procedurally irregular. 13. Violation of Chapter Six of the Constutution: That the hiring authorities failed the integrity test required of state and public officers. 14. Failure to Adhere to Section 15 of the National Government Coordination Act: That the Respondents, by making an appointment in contravention of these statutory provisions, have acted ultra vires and in defiance of legal requirements. 15. Breach of Sections 36 and 37 of the Public Service Commission Act – Violation of Merit-Based & originally prescribed recruitment criteria: That by failing to adhere to these fundamental standards, the Respondents undermined the fairness of the recruitment process, rendering the appointment unlawful and nullifying its validity. 16. Breach of Article 47(2) of the Constitution which guarantees every person affected by an administrative decision the right to be provided with written reasons: That the failure to issue formal reasons or a structured scorecard detailing the evaluation process deprived them of their constitutional right to fair process. That the the Petitioners only became aware of their non-selection through unofficial means, which not only undermines due process but also raises serious concerns about the fairness and integrity of the recruitment exercise. 17. The first respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn by Virginia Kawira Miriti, its Secretary/CEO. 18. She deponed that on or about 21st November, 2025, the Board received a request to recruit two hundred and thirty (230) posts in two hundred and twenty-four (224) ECDE centers. That the request, from the department of Education Technology Gender and Social Development dated 14th November, 2025 was forwarded through the County Secretary and Head of Public Service on 19th November, 2025. That on or about 11th December, 2025, the Board in its meeting deliberated and approved the advertisement of two hundred and thirty (230) posts in two hundred and twenty-four (224) ECDE centers in the County as requested by the said department. 19. It was further averred that the advertisement was placed in the Meru County website, on Tuesday 16th December, 2025 inviting applications for the ECDE posts in the 224 centers and the mode of application was prescribed to be through hand delivery. That the advertisement ran for three (3) weeks and was closed on 13th January 2026. That it was a requirement that each applicant was required to apply to specific schools advertised. 20. It was further deponed that the Board received a total of two thousand three hundred and thirty-six (2,336) applicants. That out of the total applicants, there were only three (3) persons living with disability and two (2) of them were shortlisted during the shortlisting exercise, while the other one did not meet the minimum requirement for KCSE grade of D+. 21. It was further deponed that the Board held a meeting on Friday 6th February 2026 and it shortlisted and approved the candidates to be interviewed. That the interviews were scheduled to be conducted from Tuesday 17th March 2026 to 20th March 2026 and have since been conducted and the results from the same are ready for release. 22. It is averred that from the foregoing, it is clear that the Petition dated 12th March, 2026 is frivolous, fatally defective, overtaken by events and an abuse of the court process and time. 23. In response to paragraph 5 of the Petition and paragraph 5 of the supporting affidavit by Mutuma Gladys Makena, it is averred that the Petitioners have not provided any evidence to substantiate their averments. That the averments are false as no such thing took place during the application process. 24. The first respondent also denied the averments contained in paragraph 6 of the said affidavit, adding that the Petitioners have not provided any evidence of their “reliable information” showing that the applicants were asked for a bribe of Kshs. 400,000/=. That further, the matter has not been reported to the DCI for investigations and neither has such information ever been brought to the attention of the Board for further investigation. 25. It is further deponed that that the recruitment and selection process was in line with Section 59 1(b) of the County Governments Act that gives the Board powers to appoint persons to hold or act in offices of the county public service. That the recruitment was guided solely by the criteria pre-determined in the meeting of the Board held on 6th February, 2026 under minute MCPSB 4/26/01/2026 on the Criteria for ECDE Teachers Minimum qualification of D+ and above in KCSE and relevant experience. 26. It was denied that the recruitment was marred by nepotism and cronyism as averred by the Petitioners. That the said averment is not only false but also unsupported by any evidence before the Court. 27. It is further averred that the constitutional unit of devolution of a county is a ward and thus it was not a legal requirement for the Board to indicate the different sub counties the shortlisted candidates hailed from and that in any case, a shortlist is normally limited to the name of the applicant, their national identity number and the date, time and place of their interview. That the shortlisted candidates were selected from different wards within the county as demonstrated by the summary analysis conducted by the Board annexed to her affidavit. 28. The first respondent further avers that the Petitioners have not provided any evidence of their “investigations” showing that the Board recruited only those with good connections or only those who parted with a token that was used to compromise its members. 29. The second and third respondents filed a response dated which set out the following grounds; 30. The 2nd and 3rd respondents do not have the mandate to carry out the impugned exercise courtesy of Section 66 Of the County Government Act. 31. The 1st respondent is an independent legal person distinct from the 2nd and 3rd respondents. 32. The impugned recruitment was carried out in adherence to all the pertinent laws and regulations. 33. There was no infringement of any of the applicants or prospective candidates’ constitutional rights. 34. No cause of action falls against the 2nd and 3rd respondents. 35. The 2nd and 3rd respondents have been wrongfully, maliciously and un-procedurally sued. 36. Parties filed their respective submissions. 37. The Petitioners submit that the petition raises fundamental constitutional questions concerning the integrity of public recruitment, observance of merit, equality of opportunity, transparency, accountability, and adherence to the national values and principles of governance under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. 38. The Petitioners framed the following issues for determination; 1. Whether the Petitioners have met the legal threshold for instituting a constitutional petition. 2. Whether the Respondents violated the Constitution and statutory provisions governing public recruitment. 3. Whether the recruitment and shortlisting process was unconstitutional, unfair, discriminatory and unlawful. 4. Whether the Petitioners' constitutional rights were violated. 5. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought. 39. The petitioners submit that the petition meets the threshold of a constitutional petition as set out in **Anarita Karimi Njeru vs Attorney General [1979] KLR 154** as they have cited the relevant constitutional provisions forming the legal foundation of the Petition and have further set out, with sufficient particularity, the alleged constitutional violations attributable to the Respondents in the body of the Petition. That their petition identifies the specific constitutional provisions alleged to have been infringed and the manner in which the alleged violations were committed. 40. The Petitioners submit that although they met all the advertised qualifications, they were unlawfully excluded from the shortlist through a recruitment process tainted by nepotism, favoritism, discrimination, lack of transparency, and corruption. 41. The petitioners then cited the provisions of the constitution that have been violated. They submit that they have shown that; 42. They possessed all the advertised qualifications. 43. Their names were omitted from the shortlist. 44. No written reasons were supplied. 45. The shortlist failed to disclose regional distribution. 46. More than 80% of shortlisted candidates originated from one sub-county. 47. No Persons with Disabilities were shortlisted. 48. The process was allegedly influenced by political connections and corrupt practices. 49. The petitioners further submit that the matters raise serious constitutional concerns which the Respondents bear the burden of explaining. That the advertisement for the recruitment created a legitimate expectation that every applicant satisfying the prescribed qualifications would compete fairly and the Respondents could not abandon the advertised criteria in favour of undisclosed considerations. 50. The petitioners aver that the Respondents failed to conduct an open, fair and competitive recruitment process, failed to provide reasons for excluding qualified applicants, failed to ensure regional balance and inclusion of persons with disabilities, and allegedly permitted nepotism, favoritism and corrupt practices to influence the recruitment. 51. In support of their submissions the petitioners cited the decision in **Communication Commission of Kenya & 5 Others vs Royal Media Services & 5 Others.** 52. The 1st respondent framed the following issues for determination; 53. *Whether the Petition dated 12th March, 2026 has met the threshold set out in the case of* ***Anarita Karimi Njeru****;* 54. *Whether the 1st Respondent lawfully discharged its statutory mandate in the shortlisting exercise.* 55. It was the 1st respondent’s submission that the Petition fails to meet the threshold for a constitutional petition set in the case of **Anarita Karimi Njeru v Republic (supra)** for the following reasons; 56. The Petition reveals a litany of vague and generalised allegations that are unsupported by any concrete particulars or evidence. 57. That no names are given, no dates are stated, no supporting documentation is annexed and no complaint was ever lodged with the Board or any law enforcement authority about this alleged incident thus demonstrating a lack of any constitutional violation. 58. That paragraph 9 of the Petition alleging that "qualified candidates were overlooked in favour of less-qualified individuals with personal ties to the hiring board or executive" is a classic generalisation devoid of any factual anchor. That the Petitioners do not state the names of any "less-qualified" candidate who was shortlisted, do not provide the academic credentials of such candidates for comparison, and do not demonstrate any specific personal tie between any shortlisted candidate and any member of the Board or the Executive. 59. That while the petition invokes Article 73 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 that speaks on the Responsibilities of Leadership,it fails to identify which specific public officer is alleged to have breached their leadership responsibilities, in what respect or and in what manner the breach has taken place. 60. That while they have invoked Article 56 of the 2010, Constitution of Kenyathat speaks on the protection of minorities and marginalised groupsand the petitioners have failed to cite which minority or marginalised group they themselves belong to, or how the impugned shortlisting process adversely affected such a group. 61. It is further submitted that maintaining this Petition on the record in these circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court and a waste of judicial resources. That the primary relief sought by the Petitioners is the revocation of the shortlist notice and a re-run of the recruitment process and the same has been rendered wholly moot as the interviews have since been conducted and the results are ready for release and thus it would be neither practically feasible nor in the public interest to halt or unwind a completed competitive recruitment process, particularly in the absence of any evidence of illegality. 62. It is further submitted that the 1st Respondent lawfully discharged its statutory mandate in the shortlisting exercise. That the 1st Respondent, under Section 59(1)(b) of the County Governments Act has the power and mandate to "appoint persons to hold or act in offices of the county public service, including in the offices of members of the boards of county corporations." 63. It was submitted that the mere fact that a candidate holds the minimum academic qualification does not automatically entitle them to be shortlisted where, as here, there were 2,336 applications for 230 posts. That the Board is entitled to apply objective criteria to arrive at a manageable and meritorious shortlist and thus the Petitioners have no constitutional or legal right to be shortlisted and cannot successfully petition the court on the mere ground that they were not called for interview. 64. In response to the Petitioners’ allegations that the Board was obligated to indicate the sub-counties from which shortlisted candidates hailed and that "more than 80% of shortlisted candidates come from a specific sub-county”, it was submitted that there is no legal requirement for the Board to indicate the sub-county of origin of shortlisted candidates on a shortlist. 65. As regards the Petitioners’ claim that persons with disabilities (PWDs) were not considered in the shortlisting exercise, the 1st respondent submits that it was already shown that that there were only three (3) personswith disability who applied and out of those, two (2) were shortlisted and proceeded to the interview stage. That the third did not meet the minimum academic requirement of a D+ grade in KCSE. 66. In conclusion the 1st respondent submits that it duly observed the requisite Constitutional and statutory provisions that governed the exercise and that the petitioners have failed to prove otherwise. 67. For the 2nd and 3rd respondents, it was submitted that they were wrongly joined in the petition. That it is the sole mandate of the 1st respondent to recruit and employ people within the County Government of Meru and more so the ECDE recruitment which is at the center stage of this petition. They urged the court to strike out their names under Rule 5(d) of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Right and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules 2013. 68. Just like the 1st respondent, it was submitted that the petition has failed to meet the threshold set out in **Anarita Karimi Njeru case(supra**). 69. It was further submitted that the petitioners have not tabled any pertinent material before court to prove the allegations raised. That for instance, while they allege that all the recruited candidates hailed from one locality, they did not provide further evidence to support their claim. That therefore the petitioners have failed to tender sufficient evidence as required under section 107 of the Evidence Act. 70. The 2nd and 3rd respondents revisited the issue of jurisdiction but this court has already dealt with the same. 71. The first issue to be determined is whether the 2nd and 3rd respondents have been properly joined to this petition. 72. The petition from my reading, does not cite any constitutional violations on the part of the 2nd and 3rd respondents. All such accusations are against the 1st respondent. It was thus not clear why they were joined. 73. Rule 5(d) of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules 2013(Mutunga Rules) provide as follows; **The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear just;** **i) Order that the name of any party improperly joined be struck out.** 1. It must be remembered that under section 57 of the County Government Act, the 1st Respondent is a legal person and its actions or omissions are attributable to it only alongside its officials. The section provides as follows; **There is established a County Public Service Board in each County, which shall be—** **(a) a body corporate with perpetual succession and a seal; and** **(b) capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name.** 1. The functions of the 1st respondent are set out under section 59 thereof which provides, inter alia, as follows; **The functions of the County Public Service Board shall be, on behalf of the county government, to—** **(a) establish and abolish offices in the county public service;** **(b) appoint persons to hold or act in offices of the county public service including in the Boards of cities and urban areas within the county and to confirm appointments;** 1. Therefore, I am in agreement with the counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondent that they cannot be held liable for any action of omission of the 1st respondent. 2. Consequently, the 2nd and 3rd respondents are struck out from the petition. There shall be no orders as to costs. 3. The next issue is whether the petition as drawn meets the threshold of such a petition as set out in **Anarita Karimi’s case (Supra).** In that case the Court of Appeal stated as follows as regards a constitutional petition; ***"If a person is seeking redress from the High Court on a matter which involves a reference to the Constitution, it is important (if only to ensure that justice is done to his case) that he should set out with a reasonable degree of precision that of which he complains, the provisions said to be infringed, and the manner in which they are alleged to be infringed.”*** 1. In **Arthur Njuguna Kamau v Eunice Wangari Karanja & County Land Registrar** **(Petition E005 of 2024)**, cited by the 1st respondent, the Supreme reinstated the follows in regards to the threshold for a constitutional petition: ***“Relying on the jurisprudence enunciated in Anarita Karimi Njeru (supra) and Mumo Matemu vs. Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance, Attorney General, Minister of Justice & Constitutional Affairs, Director of Public Prosecutions, Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists & Kenya Human Rights Commission [2013] KECA 445 (KLR), the appellate court restated the principle that constitutional violations must be pleaded with a reasonable degree of precision and that the appellant’s petition did not meet this threshold. In addition, the court found that the petition had failed to demonstrate to the required standards how the alleged individual rights and fundamental freedoms were violated, infringed, or threatened by the respondents.”*** 1. I have looked at the petition. The petitioners have set out the provisions of the constitution that they rely upon and the alleged violations. They have pleaded that the process was conducted in a manner that was not transparent, that a majority of the shortlisted candidates came from one Sub- County, contrary to the constitutional requirements of regional balance. It is also pleaded that there were cases of nepotism and corruption in the process. 2. In my view, a petitioner only needs to set out constitutional provisions and the alleged violations. This has been done with reasonable provisions. The court is able to discern what their petition is all about. 3. I am thus of the view that the petition meets the threshold laid down in **Analita Karimi’s case (Supra).** 4. The next question to be answered is whether the petitioners have provided sufficient ground to warrant a grant of the orders supplied in the petition. 5. It is important to note that constitutional petitions do not necessarily need to be decided as would be done in an ordinary civil case. This is because in some cases, the information that the court requires to make a finding is often with the very party against whom the petition is filed. Thus, the blanket application of section 107 of the Evidence Act may not be appropriate and would impose an impossible burden of proof on legitimate petitioners who often come to court in the public interest. 6. It follows that a different approach is taken to such petitions. Where there is apparent reasonable cause to hear a petitioner, then the court ought not to shut him/her out on the rules of evidence. Where the information that is required is in the hands of the respondent, the court will require that the same be provided by that respondent. 7. The petitioners’ argument is that the recruitment process was conducted in a manner contrary to the cited constitutional requirements. They raised issues of nepotism, favoritism, discrimination, corruption and lack of transparency. 8. The first respondent avers that the process was above board and as such, the same ought to be allowed to proceed to its conclusion. 9. Article 2 of the Constitution binds all persons and state organs. Any action that is deemed to be inconsistent with the Constitution is invalid and this court has power to declare so. 10. Article 10(2) of the Constitution is a deliberate initiative of the people of Kenya, to ensure good governance. It sets out the values and principles that all state organs, officers and all persons must abide by. It states inter alia, as follows; **The national values and principles of governance include: -** 1. **patriotism, national unity, sharing and devolution of power, the rule of law, democracy and participation of the people;** 2. **human dignity, equity, social justice, inclusiveness, equality, human rights, non-discrimination and protection of the marginalised;** 3. **good governance, integrity, transparency and accountability; and** 4. **sustainable development.** 5. These are not hollow words. They are the supreme law of this country and they cannot be treated casually by any person or state organ. 6. I have looked at the list of shortlisted candidates, which was tendered by the 1st respondent. While I agree with the 1st respondent that the list published meets the requisite information threshold for such an exercise, for the consumption of the general public, it falls short of what was required from it in this petition. 7. The information available is to the effect that the 1st respondent received a total of 2,336 applications. That out of these, 3 were persons living with disability, and out of the 3, 2 were shortlisted while the other did not meet the minimum requirements set by the 1st respondent. The details of these candidates were not provided to the court. 8. As regards the other candidates, I note that key information that would counter the petition’s averments is missing. Whilst the list provides for the distribution of the interviews per ward, it does not give sufficient information as to where the candidates came from, which is the very basis of the petition, alleging non-compliance with sub- regional balance within the county. 9. All state organs are required to ensure that there is equity and equality in law it deals with its processes and service delivery. Nothing is more demanding of this than in an exercise such as the impugned recruitment process. The 1st respondent is obligated to ensure that there is sub-regional balance in such recruitment. 10. Unfortunately, the 1st respondent, despite facing a petition that accuses it of flagrant disregard of the Constitution, has been cagey with the information it presented to the court. Nothing would have been easier than providing the court with a list showing that indeed, in recruiting the candidates, it has observed regional balance, within all the sub-counties or wards within Meru County, among other allegations levelled against it. Further, the 1st respondent ought to satisfy the court that it has observed the obligatory gender and PWD rules in its recruitment process. 11. That crucial information was not presented. It is not for the court to pore over the information presented and assume that the provisions of the law have been met. 12. Even mare telling is the fact that the 1st respondent claims to have completed the interview process and it was ready to issue letters of appointment, yet the information as to who has been successful is not provided. 13. The question is, why is there scanty information provided to the court? 14. It must be remembered that the petitioners have stated that they come to this court not just on their behalf but in the public interest. The information that is to be provided is not just for their consumption, but for the people of the entire county of Meru. The 1st respondent owes the people of Meru County a duty to show them the process was free of any of the violations cited by the petitioner. 15. The provisions of Article 232 of the Constitution are deliberate and compliance with the same is not an option. They are obligatory and noncompliance with the same can only lead to one conclusion, a declaration that the process is unconstitutional. 16. In **Orogo Vs Chairman KRA and 2 others [2024] KEHC 1968 (KLR),** the court dealt with a recruitment within the Kenya Revenue Authority, which had been accused of non-compliance with ethnic or regional balance. The court emphasized on the need for every state organ to adhere to the constitutional obligations placed on them. The court held as follows; ***“The values and principles stated in Article 232 reflect those stated in the preamble, which I have recited above. It is about justice, in terms of when employing or making appointments ensuring that*** ***there is representation of all the diverse communities of Kenya, and ensuring equity and equality by affording equal opportunity to members of all the ethnic groups in Kenya. This is about social justice, where all ethnic groups are considered, and distribution of available opportunities is in a balanced manner between them. It is about celebrating ethnic and other forms of diversity, and factoring*** ***them in all the programming, including in recruitment, employment and appointments. It is about promoting national unity and creating one indivisible nation, but treating all equally, and distributing*** ***all resources and opportunities equally, including those in employment and appointments. It is about being committed to promoting the wellbeing of communities and the nation, by being fair and treating every community and ethnic group fairly and equally with all others. It is about recognising the aspirations of all Kenyans, for a government based on human rights, equality, democracy, social justice and the rule of law. Kenya Revenue Authority is part of the government of Kenya, and it has a duty*** ***to recognise the aspirations of Kenyans towards that end, and it bears a duty to ensure that those aspirations are met, by respecting human rights, by way of treating all equally and with dignity. By*** ***practising democracy, in terms of being inclusive, through embracing members of all Kenya ethnic groups, and incorporating them in its policies, in recruitment, to ensure all ethnic groups in Kenya are represented at Kenya Revenue Authority at all levels, and are accorded equal opportunities with everyone else. Social justice is pretty much about the same theme. Rule of law would work against discrimination, unequal treatment, exclusion, among other factors. These same principles are captured in Article 10 of the Constitution.”*** 1. In the stated case, the court was provided with the crucial information that led it to conclude that the recruitment process of the KRA officers flouted the Constitution. The principles set out therein apply to the 1st respondent, at the County level. 2. In the instant case, as I have stated, the crucial information is missing. It was the duty of the 1st respondent to provide the same and having not done so, it cannot be allowed to get away with it. That would create an unwarranted precedent, where in order to avoid accountability in petitions of this nature, the respondents keep vital information away from the court. 3. The duty of this court cannot be overemphasized. It is the last bastion of hope for the citizens of this county in ensuring that there is adherence to the Constitution. The court has a duty, when so moved, to ensure that there is compliance with the constitution. 4. Now, given the dearth of requisite information on the specific violations alluded to by the petitioners, I am unable at this stage to make any conclusive findings. 5. That said, the court cannot fold its hands and tell the petitioners to go away and try next time. The court has powers to make orders to ensure that its process is not treated in casual manner as is the case herein. 6. For these reasons, the following directions shall issue: - 7. **The 1st respondent shall within the next 30 days file a complete list of the shortlisted candidates showing the following;** 8. **Name.** 9. **Gender.** 10. **Sub-county/ward of origin as disclosed by each successful candidate.** 11. **In addition, the list of the successful candidates is to be filed, with the same information as in (a) above within 30 days.** 12. **Each Board member of the 1st respondent is within the said 30 days to file a declaration of any form of family relationship with any of the candidates set out in (a) and (b) above.** 13. **The petitioners are at liberty upon receipt of the information above to respond to the same vide an affidavit within 14 days.** 14. **A mention date for compliance shall be given after delivery of this judgment.** 15. Orders accordingly. **Dated, Signed and Delivered at Meru this 19th day of August, 2026.** **H. M. NYAGA** **JUDGE**